Politics, parenting and other prattlings.

February 28, 2008

First impressions -- Ian Mercado

Last weekend the town of Yorba Linda, California was rocked by the gruesome murder-suicide of the Cho family. Like most Californians, I read the first reports with sadness for a family where the dysfunction had gone so wrong. In the original stories, the husband-murderer's cousin, Jun Cho was quoted:

"This is not the person I know," Jun Cho, 41, said in a telephone interview from Hawthorne. "He was a hard-working person and a good family man. He was never appreciated."

He said Orland, who grew up in Manila, was valedictorian at Morningside High School in Inglewood and then joined the Navy. Orland Cho worked day and night shifts at Los Angeles International Airport in the cargo department as a supervisor before selling cell phones for AT&T and getting in to life insurance sales, Jun Cho said.

But no matter how much he worked, Jun Cho said, Orland Cho felt it was never enough to please his wife.

Pretty pitiful, huh? Grasping wife drives overworked husband to such dispair he cannot think of another way out but to take a shotgun and splatter his family from doorstep to bedroom.

But a funny thing has happened since Sunday. That part of the story, while residing on Google search terms has pretty much disappeared from the "updated" newspaper stories, with no explanation. :::POOF:::

And in one of those 6-degrees-of-separation instances, I find out why when I receive the following emails from "K", my sister's best friend (uncorrected for typos)

Hi everyone, All is well with me and my Mom is still hanging on. God Bless her.

By now you have all heard about the murder of the family in Yorba Linda. This is such a tragedy because I was friends with the wife Maricel Cho and I new the kids.

Maricel was mom's caregiver for the past four years. She was very special lady and mother. It takes a special person to take care of the elderly and Alzheimer patients. We grew close through the years. The news papers painted her badly because his family talked to them and wanted him to look good. The newspaper has no idea what she did for a living and that she made more money than him. She was painted as unappreciative. He was controlling, verbally and abusive to her. She kept it together for the kids but he threatened her if she kicked him out. He just got fired from his new job at UPS because the back ground check came back with a conviction of a illegal fire arm. Yeah he snapped alright. The kids were so smart and well mannered,and this is due to Maricel. she was so proud of them.

You can sure tell that I am mad , why couldn't he just take himself out!

The family, her mother, sister, nieces and nephews are devastated. They also take care of Mother and do a great job. Maricel's son who has made it through this, will live with her sister. He asked today "where will I live now". Pray for them. There is a fund set up for her son Ian Mercado at Washington Mutual so pass it on and tell your friends.

Yes, those J-school trained, objective, thorough reporters get hold of the murderer's cousin and never stop to put any caveats about Jun Cho's claims in their "story". Just let the first impressions of blame-the-victim stay.

K sent this note yesterday

Heard tonight that Ian will have another surgery on the other leg which is the right. He won't be able to walk for six months or more and lots of physical therapy. I saw yesterday some pictures of Nicole from last weeks music recital. She was playing the cello. The parents of one of her friends took them and brought them by.

Ian has a very rough time ahead of him, even after he physically heals. A fund has been set up for him:

February 25, 2008

"When one has only a hammer ...

... everything begins to look like a nail." as the quote goes.

And if you're a Vagina Warrior who views anything vaguely :::gasp::: traditional as part of The Patriarchal Conspiracy then you're going to engage in knee-jerk, righteous indignation about Conservative doctors

who decide that you’re not worthy of medical treatment if you’re female and engaging in sexual behavior they disapprove of has reached the point where some doctors are refusing to perform Pap smears on unmarried women.

without ever once checking the veracity of the "report." Indeed, it seems all roads lead back to this one alarming report essay containing a story about a couple of close, but anonymous, friends of the author being refused Pap smears on religious grounds. Said author, Peggy Cooke who is not an uninterested observer.

February 24, 2008

The Bamboozling

February 21, 2008

NYSlimes

Ho hum, like it wasn't predictable that once John McCain is assured of the Republican nomination that the press who was so fawning over him would turn on him. The NYTimes endorsed McCain and now runs a hit piece that rehashes 20 year old stories and nod nod wink wink dances around making a direct allegation that McCain had an affair eight years ago.

McCain's affair story, based on anonymous sources who only say they thought it was a romance (no sex observed) has as much credibility as the Obama gay lover one. Yet, I didn't see that story in the Times.

Either both or neither story should be getting coverage.

But hey, that wouldn't fit the left-dominated MSM agenda of getting a Democrat in the White House, no matter what.

February 18, 2008

Michelle Obama - all sizzle

Last Friday, Hugh Hewitt ran clips of Michelle Obama's speech at UCLA a couple of weeks ago. The clips are informative in ways that Barak's own speeches are not. Not that Michelle actually says anything more substansive than Barry the Hopemeister. He is all music and no lyric. And while Michelle does her best work in the harmony department, there are some clever and subtle themes being played that, standing alone, should give us pause.

Unlike Jeff Goldstein, I don't have the deep academic background to discuss all the finer semiotic points. And Ed Morrissey tackles the matters of policy in this speech. I want to look at Michelle's UCLA speech from a POV more inline with advertising, marketing and public speaking. How is Michelle's message constructed to speak to, and energize, the Democrat base while making palatable some ideas that the general public might reject? How does Michelle's style of delivery advance or contradict her words?

If you haven't heard Michelle's speech, here is Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4. As you're watching it, notice Michelle's performance as you're listening to the words. Notice her clothing, hair, body language and the dynamics of her delivery. Indeed, after listening to the speech once, watch snippets of it again without the sound.

Where I'd like to begin is with Michelle's appearance and how her style of dress, pictured at upper right, was as tailored to a college crowd as her pin-striped suiting (pictured right) was chosen to deliver a message to the crowd gathered in New Hampshire in May 2007. In NH, Michelle was the serious, buttoned-down wife of a presidential candidate sitting quietly on the sidelines until she was "spontaneously" asked why someone should vote for her husband.

"He's a man who has put his values before his profit. He's not running for president because he wants to be president. That's sort of the irony in it. He's running for president because he believes we can do better as a country."

At UCLA she was center stage and her studied-casual outfit of khaki pants, cap sleeve blouse and costume jewelry was telling the students and the rest of the Los Angeles crowd "Don't see me as an Ivy-league-trained lawyer and Senator's wife, I'm just regular folk; a soccer mom, a PTA mom." Her hair is pulled back, "Like you, I don't have time to fuss over myself, not that I value that fussiness anyway. You and me, we have more important things to discuss." Michelle's choice is to put her audience at ease with an image of woman who wouldn't be out of place at their own backyard BBQ.

Now, onto Michelle's performance and how she moves easily between preacher and scold and how close she comes to letting anger take over.

Effective public speaking is a talent. Whether one is a pitchman for the latest multi-level marketing scheme or a standup comedian, reaching out and connecting with largely anonymous audiences and keeping them awake is a skill that is innate. One can learn certain skills, one can improve on delivery and technique, but the true showman revels on the stage. We've already seen the fine oratory skills of Barack; the soaring rhetoric and the emotion he evokes from his audiences. Read the same speeches and one is struck by vapidness, such is his skill in delivery.

Michelle is another formidable speaker. She dominates the stage. A purposeful stride to the podium and she lays open her bare arms upon it, alternately gripping it or gesturing towards the audience. She gestures often, bringing her hand up to shoulder level, using her hand as a conductor does a baton, punctuating her points. Her voice is trained, relaxed throat so the sounds are full and round, and she uses a singer's dynamic of pushing up from the diaphram to give forceful emphasis without shrillness. Other times she drops her voice without going quiet, an intimate tone mirrored by body language of the only times when she drops her arms to her sides and gestures inward with her hands -- "See, we are in this together." Michelle as a speaker wants the audience to be engaged by her performance so they will be emotionally invested in her message.

And her message starts out as populist as anything erstwhile Dem candidate John Edwards ever put out. In part 1, at 1:53

“We are so close in this country to being a united states”

Michelle picks up the Edwards' theme of "two Americas". However, the dreaded Other, the "they" that keep "regular folk" down is never directly articulated. It is just assumed. She spends the first part of this speech talking about her daughters and at 2:23

“I want my girls to travel this world with pride”

Michelle never says why they can't do that now. She never articulates "My girls would be ashamed to be Americans abroad because what THEY have done to our county". Her audience applauds and cheers her line because they get it. They've heard it before and Michelle doesn't have repeat it. She then moves on from her daughters to universalize her wants for all children -- at 2:20

“in 2008 we should be in a place where children can dream any kind of life for themselves regardless of their race, their gender their socio-economic status. They should be able to dream big dreams and know they are going to have the love and resources of this entire nation behind them. That is the least we can do for our children. But the truth is we are not there yet.”

Michelle's speech is full of images of strong, intact, traditional families. She refers often to her own upbringing in such a home, yet she cleverly uses the device to promote a message, not of individual or familial responsibility, but of government as ultimate fulfiller of dreams. Dream your dreams and it will be government to fund them for you. Do it for the children."They" haven't only failed the children, so they are restricted in their dreams and cannot travel abroad without being ashamed, but "they" have also made the children, and us, afraid. At 4:24

“and we are still a nation that is too guided by fear. We have become afraid of everyone and everything and the problem with [fear] is that is it clouds our judgment and it cuts us off, it cuts us off from one another in our own homes, in our own communities and it has certainly cut us off from the rest of the world.”

Stop the fear and the world will love us again! Nope, we've never heard that meme before. Again, the "they" are responsible for America being unloved" is implied and gets nods and agreements from an audience that is thinking "Michelle knows I get it! She really speaks to me!".

Michelle's brand of populism is more subtly marketed than Edwards'. She wraps it in a cozy package of her own upbringing and contrasts it with a contemporary America she finds wanting. At 7:51

“The truth about America is that the story of my father is the American story. See most Americans are like my father; they just don’t want much. Folks don’t want much. Folks want to know that if they get up and go to work everyday that they’ll earn enough to take care of their families. They want to know that they can ensure their kids get a decent education at those neighborhood public schools around the corner. They want to know if they get sick they won’t go bankrupt. They want to know after a life time of hard work they can retire with a little respect and dignity. That’s all folks want. But the sad truth in this country today is that little bitty slice of life that folks are looking for has become out of reach for most Americans. The simple little life I had has become a virtual impossibility. And we all know this. You see jobs like my father had, those blue collar jobs – outta reach. Dwindling. Disappearing. And if you’re lucky enough to have a job, salaries aren’t keeping up with the cost of living so everybody has got to work.”

Isn't nice to know that Michelle knows exactly what "most folks" want? If you have a job, you're lucky. But watch out, because "they" aren't paying you enough -- NOT that the government (local, state, fed) has increasingly taken bigger chunks out of your paycheck over the decades.

Michelle is a big advocate for the public school system. She offers herself up as "a product" of the neighborhood school. However, if all "regular folk" who "didn't want much" stayed that way, there would have been no public school for her to attend. It is people like her, whose wants and dreams for more than a "little bitty slice" that fund those schools.

But Michelle isn't done with just public education of K-12. She doesn't like post-high school education being an individual responsibility. In part 2 at 1:30 to cheers she says

"the cost of the degree is not covered by the salary you’ll earn.”

The free government buffet in Michelle's populism extends to healthcare. She frames it as she has framed wages, salaries and education -- at 2:50

“Don’t get sick in this country. Not here. Americans are in debt not because they live frivolously but because someone got sick. And even with insurance the deductibles and premiums are so high that people are putting medications and treatments on credit cards. And they can’t get out from under. I could go on and on, but this is how we're living, people, in 2008. And things have gotten progressively worse throughout my lifetime, through Democratic and Republican administrations, it hasn't gotten better for regular folks.”

Of course, Michelle doesn't come out and say "get the rich." She uses the "we are all sinners" device of religious rhetoric. At 4:15

“We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

And at 5:30

“So I am here right now because I am married to the only person in this race who has a chance of healing this nation.”

And at 5:50

“I say that because I’m a mother and a professional and a woman. I’m all these hats and I care about change. And what counts in this race, in my view, is character. It is character."

Elect Barak President and Find Salvation, hallelujah brothers and sisters!

Religious imagery is certainly not new in politics. But Michelle isn't working the "my religious beliefs inform my values" side of the sales room, just as her populism is government as Big Mommy to take care of our dreams and needs, so is government as God to take care of our spiritual needs. This distinction is either lost or ignored by liberals. The message from camp Obama is the nation has a sick soul and only Barack can heal it. It is as subtle a marketing device as having a boxom blonde draped over the hood of a concept car at a carshow.

Michelle then has to make the case of why we should be electing Barack as Pope President of the United States. She has to put meat in the thin gruel that is his experience. At 6:50

“I know what kind of choices he’s [Barack] made over a lifetime and that make him different. They make him special. And we won’t see this again. See this is a young man who grew up like regular folks, the product of a single parent household. His mother was 18 … 18 year old white woman trying to raise a black child in the 60s.”

At 7:36

“So Barack got to see the world in ways most Americans do not. Imagine a President of the United States who looks at the other countries with a level of respect and understanding without fear. Imagine a president of the United States who understands the impact that a great nation like ours has to a small village near Kogelo in Africa not because he has a policy briefing but because he has a grandmother in that little village.”

The circumstances of his birth are determinative? Did Reagan have a greater understanding of the impact of "this great nation on a small village" near Ballyporeen, Ireland because he had relatives there? Romantic nonsense promoted as unique qualification.

As in the NH rally quote above, Michelle's populism has a decidedly anti-capitalist flavor. From "values before profit" to "folks don't want much", making money is something fairly unseemly, fairly sinful in Michelle's estimation. And she is quite clear that it should be everyone's guideline. Part 3 at 0:30

“The first major decision Barak had to make in his life after college ‘Do I go to Wall Street and make money or do I work for the people?’ Barack worked as a community organizer in some of the toughest neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago helping young mothers find their voice and their power. Folks had a reason to be cynical because government had forgotten them long ago. There is no one in this race who can claim that kind of commitment to people on the ground. No one. And I would think that as a nation like ours we would demand that kind of engagement before you could even consider wanting to be President of the United States.”

At 1:25

“and many of the lawyers in this race made their millions before helping the people but not Barack … not because he couldn’t, because Barack was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. No one else can claim that distinction. No one else can. You talk about raisin’ the bar, set the bar, Barack leaped over the bar. But what did he do with those skills, he did not sell them to the highest bidder.”

The cynic in me wonders how much of Barack's decision to be a community organizer was more of political resume building than "money is icky." But I'm sure Obamessiah will cure me of my cynicism. At 2:25

“So he goes into the Illinois state senate for eight years. No other candidate in this race can claim that amount of years at the state legislative level. And wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who understood how federal law impacts local government.”

You're right Michelle. No one but a state senator, known for being "present", could ever understand how federal law impacts local government. Certainly not former governors or governors' wives, either.

Michelle works her audience skillfully. She knows its rhythm. She'll lighten intense moments with snippets of pointed humor. And she is intense. One gets a clear sense this is a person you do not want angry with you. Michelle uses her anger as another tool in her rhetorical utility belt. She lets it flash in her eyes and reins it in with grimaces and pursed lips when sharing with the audience of how "they" are treating her husband. Michelle warms to the theme of Barack as ultimately triumphant victim. She uses it to win sympathy, then cheers with this at 2:52

“We live in Chicago, people. Don’t worry about whether Barack is tough enough to handle the Republicans. We have seen it all.”

Michelle works the "Barak against the naysayers" angle to good effect, setting up the audience for a segue into what Barack demands from them. At 7:39

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed – you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged.”

In part 4, Michelle starts the closing. For the first time, she moves from behind the podium, traveling with the mike and working the audience from the stage. She returns to the theme established from the start Do it for the children by relating a story of a ten year old girl she meets on the campaign trail who sees the election of Barack as meaning she can do whatever she wants when she grows up. Michelle uses it as the wrap ... not a summary of articulated policies, not a vision of specific goals that will be achieved, but one in which image is most important and not voting for Barack is a personal failing. At 3:55

“So we need to do a little dreaming. Dream of the day when a man like Barack Obama is standing in front of the capitol with his hand on the Bible taking the oath of office to become the next President of the United States. And just imagine what that image, what message that will send to all these little kids in this nation. And if we can do that here in this country image what we can do around the world, because you see we all know the world is watching. We have young kids all over the world we are looking to this nation and they are trying to figure out who we are and what we are going to become. We have a chance not just to make history but we can change the world. We can change the world. Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can.”

Michelle gives a masterful performance. But tease away the rhetoric, explore the populist themes running underneath the exhortations to salvation and we are left with something not quite savory.

In the midst of the ubiquitous New York City garbage strikes of the 1970's, savvy citizens developed a strategy of wrapping their trash in fancy wrap and bows and leaving them unattended, soon swept away by gullible thieves. I'm reminded of the same human failing of wanting the unearned and the consequences when examining camp Obama. Merely an empty box is the least of the worries.

Cassandra explores some articles that have had me simmering for days (and which I will write on tonight or tomorrow - it is currently a work in progress). Is there really a "marriage strike" or are we just witnessing a new excuse to not growup?

February 07, 2008

November 4 2008 - the choice

February 03, 2008

McCain: Principled or Prick?

Going into Super Tuesday with McCain in a slight lead to tie up the Republican nomination, comes a fairly even-handed interview of McCain by Evan Thomas of Newsweek. This is less about McCain's policy than about McCain the man. And for all the positives in his background from the legacy of being part of a military family, to how he handled being a POW brutalized by the North Vietnamese, to his bulldoggedness in the Senate, the negatives concerning how he treats people who disagree with him is more than a little troubling.

McCain, who clearly cannot stand Romney (and vice versa), bridles at anyone or anything that impugns his honor, most sacred of military virtues. In rare weak moments, he can seem prickly, impetuous, vindictive—the sort of military martinet whose finger is supposed to be kept far from the button. Yet he is endowed with self-knowledge and self-effacing dignity. "I'm a man of many failings," McCain says with a genuine, if practiced, ruefulness. "I make no bones about it. That's why I'm such a believer in redemption. I've done many, many things wrong in my life. The key is to try to improve." There are a number of U.S. senators who can attest to McCain's repentance with handwritten apologies for his intemperance.

A sharp temper in and of itself is not, in my humble opinion, disqualifying for the POTUS. Contrary to "accepted wisdom", anger, like war, can be a legitimate response to egregious wrongs. However, when that temper is coupled with a tendency to disrespect people who do things differently or hold different views, then it becomes worrisome:

In the military, there are two kinds of leaders, McCain mused in his interview with NEWSWEEK—the "organizer of victory" type, like Gen. George Marshall and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the more "inspirational" type, like his father and grandfather, who may not be terribly organized but are gifted at leading men into battle. Likewise, said McCain, there are different types of senators. "One is the person who is involved in the detail and the appropriation for the road or the bypass," he said—the type of lawmaker who gets involved in the "minutiae" that helps "people get re-elected." McCain said, unenthusiastically: "I respect that kind of senator." Then there is the "policymaking" senator, clearly McCain's model.

Even more troubling is acting on that disrespect:

The lore of "Senator Hothead," as McCain has been dubbed over the years, is considerable. McCain is widely reported to have yelled profanities at senators and even shoved one or two (including the late Strom Thurmond, a feisty nonagenarian at the time of the alleged incident). After McCain used an obscenity to describe Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa to his face in 1992, Grassley did not speak to McCain for more than a year. ("That's all water over the dam," Grassley says.) McCain has reportedly learned to control his temper; still, there are moments when he cannot or does not. Last spring, at a closed-door meeting of senators and staff, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas tried to amend the immigration bill to make ineligible convicted felons, known terrorists and gang members. Agitated that any attempt to amend the bill would jeopardize its slim chance of passage (ultimately, the bill failed), McCain snapped, "This is chickens–––." Cornyn shot back that McCain shouldn't come parachuting in off the presidential-campaign trail at the last minute and start making demands. "F––– you," said McCain, in front of about 30 witnesses. [...]

"John has an enemies list longer than Nixon's," says a former Pentagon official who did not want to get on it. "And, unlike Nixon, McCain really does try to get you." After the Boeing scandal, three Air Force officials who quit all found that one of McCain's top aides had quietly spread word around the defense community that anyone hiring them would risk the senator's displeasure. And he still has an impetuosity that is nervous-making to old foreign-policy hands. One of them, a former high official in several Republican administrations who occasionally advises McCain (and wishes to continue to) worries to NEWSWEEK about McCain's "quirky" judgment and his unwillingness to change his mind once it's made up. [emphasis added]

McCain's performance in the last debate underscores the negatives in this interview. The hardass persona has some attractiveness - many consider it part of that "straight talk express" campaign meme. But the unwillingness of some people to be named in the article, and the careful couching of criticism by named sources speak to McCain's reputation to seek-and-destroy those who oppose or disagree with him.

Any wonder that McCain and Hillary! get along together so famously?

While the general tone of the Newsweek interview is laudatory, make no mistake. If McCain pulls off the Republican nomination, every single negative in the article will be grist for the Democrat's PR wing, aka the Mainstream Media.

February 02, 2008

Saturday night music interlude

February 01, 2008

Election 2008 - the supremacy of feelings

As Karl at PW points out, Republicans are having as many problems with reality as Democrats where it concerns what they feel is their candidate's positions and what those positions actually are. The willfull suspension of disbelief in what McCain's historical behavior towards conservatives even after his crude and dishonest performance at the last debate at the Reagan library is jaw dropping.

On the other side, the Democrat debate at the Kodac Theater overshadowed an earlier appearance by Obama in East Los Angeles, where this Paragon of Post-Racialist campaigning gave a speech that fairly reeked of race-baiting in timehonored, old-school Demagogueryocrat stumping.

“They feel like the education system isn’t designed for people like us, and the job market isn’t designed for people like us. And trying to get a mortgage isn’t designed for people like us. And health care is not designed for people like us,” Obama shouted.“Well let me tell you something, this is our country. America should be designed for people like us." [...]

“We have to stop letting those in power turn us against each other. No place do I see this more than in our immigration debate. I am tired of people of people using this as a political football,” Obama said. “We need to solve this problem.”

He said that he worked on comprehensive immigration reform with both Ted Kennedy and John McCain.

"My father when he came here, he didn’t look like you know - he didn’t look like he stepped off the Mayflower."

I'm still trying to locate audio clips of what I heard last night, or at least a transcript. Even without directly quoting Obama, the LATimes wrote of Barry:

landing in diverse Los Angeles just five days before Tuesday's primary, he expanded on his story, painting it in racial tones.

Obama never once used the word "illegal" but only spoke of immigrants and feigned surprise that anyone should worry about immigrants from that place on our border when we aren't equally worrying about Irish or Polish immigrants that overstay their visas.